Patti wrote:I see the *bifurcation* at the point marked "delta" (fbi triradial point of course) as the marginal angle of the 3 angles of the triradius that meets at the outer angles. That *birucation* is only 2 ridges of 2 converging fields and not 3.

yes, that's how I see it.

Oh, basically I have no problem to agree with that as well! (But Patti's comment only relates to the 'scientific' perspective; while my comment related only to the F.B.I. perspective).

So Patti, I hope that you are aware that Lynn's confirmation of your observation... not necessarily implicates that she disagrees with my observations.

(I am saying this because a few posts earlier you 'welcomed' Lynn's agreement ... after she had confirmed that Lynn made a mistake when she posted her agreeing statement, etc. etc.)

Lynn & Patti, let's be aware of the following two points as well:

1 - That the F.B.I. has not adopted the element of the 'triangular shape' in their method2 - And contrary to the examples presented by Penrose + Schaumann & Alter - in figure 25 the angles between the two diverging 'radiants' ... is slightly smaller than 90 degrees.

And additionally... maybe I also remind you that this 'tri-angular shape'... is made of thee 'bifurcations'!?

Therefore the ulitimate consequence of the F.B.I.'s approach is that one should never ever underestimate the presence of any clear 'bifurcation'.

...And this probably explains very well why - after considering all possible VISUAL FACTS - Lynn & I agreed:- That in the Disney print the F.B.I.'s delta is located in the 'triangular shape';- And in Kiwihands middle finger example the F.B.I.'s delta is located at the bifurcation.

Patti wrote:I see the *bifurcation* at the point marked "delta" (fbi triradial point of course) as the marginal angle of the 3 angles of the triradius that meets at the outer angles. That *birucation* is only 2 ridges of 2 converging fields and not 3.

yes, that's how I see it.

Oh, basically I have no problem to agree with that as well! (But Patti's comment only relates to the 'scientific' perspective; while my comment related only to the F.B.I. perspective).

So Patti, I hope that you are aware that Lynn's confirmation of your observation... not necessarily implicates that she disagrees with my observations.

(I am saying this because a few posts earlier you 'welcomed' Lynn's agreement ... after she had confirmed that Lynn made a mistake when she posted her agreeing statement, etc. etc.)

Lynn and I both realized that you had different ideas in mind for "pattern" and "pattern area".

We both agreed, I think, that knowing the pattern area is needed (we all three have said this) to know if when tracing and a ridge forks or ends, to move outward from the pattern rather than inward). We all agreed that the pattern is an end result of tracing the fbi type lines or Penrose's radiants.

This tidbit of information/clarity is lacking in the words I marked earlier in red.

Martijn (admin) wrote:And after saying this... I hope it makes sense that next to the words 'triradius' and 'triradial point'... the F.B.I. is also not using the words 'fork' and 'splitting'!!!

Which implicates that the F.B.I. really is using the word 'bifurcation' as an ALTERNATIVE NAME for a group of words, including: the 'triradius', the 'fork' and the 'splitting'!

Actually the FBI do use the word 'fork' A bifurcation is the forking or dividing of one line into two or more branches.

As Patti & I keep saying, the above definition of a bifurcation is not the same as three fields of parallel lines meeting

Lynn... the F.B.I. indeed has mentioned the work 'forking' exactly once in their book: and that single use of that word is found only in the definition of the 'bifurcation'!

So how they use of the word 'forking'... actually confirms my point: the word 'forking' is directly associated with the 'bifurcation'!

This should make you aware that my green statement ... is correct.

PS. And be aware... formally, the word 'fork' is not mentioned in the F.B.I. book at all.

Ok, so they don't use the word fork, they say forking. But I'm not sure why you are being so pedantic, forking creates a fork.

Which implicates that the F.B.I. really is using the word 'bifurcation' as an ALTERNATIVE NAME for a group of words, including: the 'triradius', the 'fork' and the 'splitting'!I still don't see that they are using the word bifurcation as an alternative name for triradius.

Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees.60 degrees you reminded me earlier is the inside angle of a triangle with 3 equal angles of 120 degrees.

A triradius involves abutting ridges. <edit> I should add - from 3 different ridge fields or systems.

A bifurcation involves splitting ridges. <edit> and here add, from only 1 or 2 ridge fields or systems.

Patti I agree with your last 2 sentences. But I'm confused by "Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees."As you rightly said, a triradius involves abuitting ridges (and they abut at an angle of 90 - 120 degrees)so what's this about 45 - 90 degrees?

Patti wrote:I see the *bifurcation* at the point marked "delta" (fbi triradial point of course) as the marginal angle of the 3 angles of the triradius that meets at the outer angles. That *birucation* is only 2 ridges of 2 converging fields and not 3.

yes, that's how I see it.

Lynn & Patti, let's be aware of the following two points as well:

1 - That the F.B.I. has not adopted the element of the 'triangular shape' in their method

The word "delta" is used and illustrated by the FBI for triangular shape (in the field and lake drawing at the very beginning of instructions) or C & M's triangular plot at their beginning to describe how to outline the pattern.

The reason C & M dropped using Delta to mean Triradius and Point of Delta to mean Point of Triradius is because sometimes you saw the 3 ridges meeting at a center point (Star shape) and the trianglular Delta shape isn't present. The word 'delta' was used in English as a triangular shape. They were trying to end earlier confusion.

The FBI appear to approach finding the "center" of 3 fields meeting (2 different pieces of land and 1 lake) by paddling down the stream that opens to the core (or side with parallel ridges recurving around a central location).

(2) A bifurcation is a forking ridge or a ridge splitting. 45 degrees to 90 degrees is 2 ridges abutting.

(3) I think it was misleading for the FBI to refer to the meeting of the distal and proximal fields (when conjoined) as a bifurcation. They did however tell us with their illustration of the two different fields and the enclosed lake to use our imaginations in order to accurately understand the concept.

(4) In this closeup below, it can be seen that a ridge is coming in from the pattern field (on right)and abutting a ridge from the distal field. The distal ridge as seen aiming downwards ends and the next ridge is flowing in the same direction as a continuation of the distal ridge as it diverges marginally.

(5) If the 3 meeting ridges are chosen as a meeting of 3 different fields and its center is the triradial point (fbi delta) this is incorrect as there is actually only a meeting of the distal and pattern fields.

Whoa Patti... ... sorry, I am afraid I can not agree with any of the points that you made.

Ad 1) Loesch made in her definition a 'theoretical' comment (about the 120) ... plus a more 'practical' point that illustrates that the situation of three angles of 120 degrees is rarely seen.

Ad 2) Nope. One can not speak about an 'abutting ridge' just in terms of the size of an angle... and I have reasons to assume that your point about size between 45 and 90 degrees is actually INCORRECT for a situation where three abutting ridges create a 'triradius': because then all three angles will be close to ... 120 degrees.

(Sorry Patti... the 'angles' again)

3) ... What you call 'misleading' about the F.B.I.'s example, I would prefer to describe that as an ESSENTIAL POINT.

4) Patti, in the picture below we can clearly see that the 'bifurcation' has all typical characteristics of a 'fork': because the diverging ridges each go a different way.

And therefore... formally it can not be described as an 'abutting ridge', because an essential point is actually missing: for, in Kiwihands' fingerprint one can not speak of a ridge that does not show a change in the direction of it's path'.

5) This statement is a direct result of that you don't recognize the role of the 'bifurcation' in this print (after you identified the F.B.I.'s 'type lines' incorrectly).

But after recognizing that the 'delta' is located that the bifurcation... then one can see that the 'distal area' and the 'proximal area' are confluencing.

Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees.60 degrees you reminded me earlier is the inside angle of a triangle with 3 equal angles of 120 degrees.

A triradius involves abutting ridges. <edit> I should add - from 3 different ridge fields or systems.

A bifurcation involves splitting ridges. <edit> and here add, from only 1 or 2 ridge fields or systems.

Patti I agree with your last 2 sentences. But I'm confused by "Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees."As you rightly said, a triradius involves abuitting ridges (and they abut at an angle of 90 - 120 degrees)so what's this about 45 - 90 degrees?

FBI instructions for Tented Arches:

The tented archIn the tented arch, most of the ridges enter upon one side of the impression and flow or tend to flow out upon the other side, as in the plain arch type; however, the ridge or ridges at the center do not. There are three types of tented arches:

● The type in which ridges at the center form a definite angle; i.e., 90° or less.● The type in which one or more ridges at the center form an upthrust. An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more.

● The type approaching the loop type, possessing two of the basic or essential characteristics of the loop, but lacking the third.

Angles are never formed by a single ridge but by the abutting of one ridge against another. Therefore, an angular formation cannot be used as a type line. In figure 18, ridges A and B join at an angle.

Patti wrote:I see the *bifurcation* at the point marked "delta" (fbi triradial point of course) as the marginal angle of the 3 angles of the triradius that meets at the outer angles. That *birucation* is only 2 ridges of 2 converging fields and not 3.

yes, that's how I see it.

Lynn & Patti, let's be aware of the following two points as well:

1 - That the F.B.I. has not adopted the element of the 'triangular shape' in their method

The word "delta" is used and illustrated by the FBI for triangular shape (in the field and lake drawing at the very beginning of instructions) or C & M's triangular plot at their beginning to describe how to outline the pattern.

Patti, the F.B.I. used only a VISUAL little triangle in the example of the river delta.

But they have never described any triangular shaped ridge formations, nor any ridges that create a triangle... nor used any word that starts with the letters 'triangl??'... in any of their comments about the fingerprint examples; and this is also illustrated by the fact that in figure 20 they have only represented the delta as.. a 'dot'!

And instead... the F.B.I. only talks about 'bifurcations' - regardless of what angles are involved. With only one exception: the example where a ridge 'abuts' to another ridge (but that requires the presence of one ridge that continues to follow it's path).

(2) A bifurcation is a forking ridge or a ridge splitting. 45 degrees to 90 degrees is 2 ridges abutting.

(3) I think it was misleading for the FBI to refer to the meeting of the distal and proximal fields (when conjoined) as a bifurcation. They did however tell us with their illustration of the two different fields and the enclosed lake to use our imaginations in order to accurately understand the concept.

(4) In this closeup below, it can be seen that a ridge is coming in from the pattern field (on right)and abutting a ridge from the distal field. The distal ridge as seen aiming downwards ends and the next ridge is flowing in the same direction as a continuation of the distal ridge as it diverges marginally.

(5) If the 3 meeting ridges are chosen as a meeting of 3 different fields and its center is the triradial point (fbi delta) this is incorrect as there is actually only a meeting of the distal and pattern fields.

Whoa Patti... ... sorry, I am afraid I can not agree with any of the points that you made.

Ad 1) Loesch made in her definition a 'theoretical' comment (about the 120) ... plus a more 'practical' point that illustrates that the situation of three angles of 120 degrees is rarely seen.

Ad 2) Nope. One can not speak about an 'abutting ridge' just in terms of the size of an angle... and I have reasons to assume that your point about size between 45 and 90 degrees is actually INCORRECT for a situation where three abutting ridges create a 'triradius': because then all three angles will be close to ... 120 degrees.

(Sorry Patti... the 'angles' again)

3) ... What you call 'misleading' about the F.B.I.'s example, I would prefer to describe that as an ESSENTIAL POINT.

4) Patti, in the picture below we can clearly see that the 'bifurcation' has all typical characteristics of a 'fork': because the diverging ridges each go a different way.

And therefore... formally it can not be described as an 'abutting ridge', because an essential point is actually missing: for, in Kiwihands' fingerprint one can not speak of a ridge that does not show a change in the direction of it's path'.

5) This statement is a direct result of that you don't recognize the role of the 'bifurcation' in this print (after you identified the F.B.I.'s 'type lines' incorrectly).

But after recognizing that the 'delta' is located that the bifurcation... then one can see that the 'distal area' and the 'proximal area' are confluencing.

All of my earlier points state why I disagree with you - so I'd only be repeating myself.

But as to your last image in order for your 3 green radiants to be accurate. One of them MUST be a ridge from the proximal ridge system. You instead have drawn a distal ridge that is either abutted or joined to, a ridge from the pattern side and a ridge from the distal side. It is either the upper angle of the distal corner of a triangular shaped triradius, or a bifurcation of 1 ridge spitting into 2. Not 3 fields meeting at a central point.

Patti wrote:All of my earlier points state why I disagree with you - so I'd only be repeating myself.

But as to your last image in order for your 3 green radiants to be accurate. One of them MUST be a ridge from the proximal ridge system. You instead have drawn a distal ridge that is either abutted or joined to, a ridge from the pattern side and a ridge from the distal side. It is either the upper angle of the distal corner of a triangular shaped triradius, or a bifurcation of 1 ridge spitting into 2. Not 3 fields meeting at a central point.

I see these 3 ridges as representing the triradius. One ridge from each ridge field or system. Distal, Proximal and Pattern.

4) Patti, in the picture below we can clearly see that the 'bifurcation' has all typical characteristics of a 'fork': because the diverging ridges each go a different way.

And therefore... formally it can not be described as an 'abutting ridge', because an essential point is actually missing: for, in Kiwihands' fingerprint one can not speak of a ridge that does not show a change in the direction of it's path'.

5) This statement is a direct result of that you don't recognize the role of the 'bifurcation' in this print (after you identified the F.B.I.'s 'type lines' incorrectly).

But after recognizing that the 'delta' is located that the bifurcation... then one can see that the 'distal area' and the 'proximal area' are confluencing. [/color]

You are describing a bifurcation as 1 ridge (1 field from 1 field or system) splitting or forking into 2 ridges. The 2 new branching ridges may continue in the same direction as the orginal mother ridge prior to splitting. Or, the 2 new branches may proceed in 2 directions and follow 2 different fields.

Then you seem to come up out of "where" the 3rd ridge or field and connecting or involving it with a splitting ridge?

Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees.60 degrees you reminded me earlier is the inside angle of a triangle with 3 equal angles of 120 degrees.

A triradius involves abutting ridges. <edit> I should add - from 3 different ridge fields or systems.

A bifurcation involves splitting ridges. <edit> and here add, from only 1 or 2 ridge fields or systems.

Patti I agree with your last 2 sentences. But I'm confused by "Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees."As you rightly said, a triradius involves abuitting ridges (and they abut at an angle of 90 - 120 degrees)so what's this about 45 - 90 degrees?

FBI instructions for Tented Arches:

The tented archIn the tented arch, most of the ridges enter upon one side of the impression and flow or tend to flow out upon the other side, as in the plain arch type; however, the ridge or ridges at the center do not. There are three types of tented arches:

● The type in which ridges at the center form a definite angle; i.e., 90° or less.● The type in which one or more ridges at the center form an upthrust. An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more.

● The type approaching the loop type, possessing two of the basic or essential characteristics of the loop, but lacking the third.

Angles are never formed by a single ridge but by the abutting of one ridge against another. Therefore, an angular formation cannot be used as a type line. In figure 18, ridges A and B join at an angle.

Patti, that 45 degree rule is only meant for identifying an 'upthrust'... and can formally only be applied to situations which relate to the 'horizontal plane' - see the definition on page 33:

"An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more."

So I think it is obvious that you are taking that 45 degrees rule out of context - since we are not discussing 'upthrusts'.

PS. This also implicates that this 'upthrust' rule can not be used for analysing Kiwihands' fingerprint, because the 'bifurcation' is not found at the 'horizontal plane'...!!

One more thought:

After saying this... I now better understand Lynn's earlier objection regarding the 'concept' of describing any triradius as an abuttment of 3 ridges (I am not sure in which book we found that comment, I think it was Schaumann & Alter).

Because now I recognize that this applying the concept of an 'abuttment' to a 'triradius... induced a confusing element, because the essential characteristic in a normal abuttment of 2 ridges can never be observed in a 'triradial abuttment' (because the missing of a ridge that does not change it's path).

Patti wrote:I see these 3 ridges as representing the triradius. One ridge from each ridge field or system. Distal, Proximal and Pattern.

Patti, since you are talking about a 'triradius'... it is quite a mystery for me why you keep ignoring the 'bifurcation':

Because when if you simply follow the ridge from the 'bifurcating point' ... we clearly see three perfectly normal 'radiants' that flow each into a different direction.

That is a typical characteristic of a true 'triradius' - though formally the angles are formally not large enough to describe it as a 'triradius'... but who cares??? The F.B.I. declared the classic concept of a 'triradius' as... completely irrelevant.

And yes Patti, I know that you 'perceive' that fingerprint in the way you described in the illustration.

But you you have not shared any (valid) argument to describe the 'bifurcation' as irrelevant. And additionally, you associated this 'bifurcation' as being an 'abuttment'... without presenting any (valid) argument again.

And as consequence: one continue to associate Kiwihands' example with Penrose's figure E or Schaumann & Alter's example 3.5 B.

While Lynn & I already agreed that Kiwihands' example can only be related to Penrose's figure F and Schaumann & Alter's figure 3.5 A.

PS. If you would like to contue the 'debate' about Kiwihands' example, let's do that in the other discussion. Okay?

Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees.60 degrees you reminded me earlier is the inside angle of a triangle with 3 equal angles of 120 degrees.

A triradius involves abutting ridges. <edit> I should add - from 3 different ridge fields or systems.

A bifurcation involves splitting ridges. <edit> and here add, from only 1 or 2 ridge fields or systems.

Patti I agree with your last 2 sentences. But I'm confused by "Abutting is 45 degrees to 90 degrees."As you rightly said, a triradius involves abuitting ridges (and they abut at an angle of 90 - 120 degrees)so what's this about 45 - 90 degrees?

FBI instructions for Tented Arches:

The tented archIn the tented arch, most of the ridges enter upon one side of the impression and flow or tend to flow out upon the other side, as in the plain arch type; however, the ridge or ridges at the center do not. There are three types of tented arches:

● The type in which ridges at the center form a definite angle; i.e., 90° or less.● The type in which one or more ridges at the center form an upthrust. An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more.

● The type approaching the loop type, possessing two of the basic or essential characteristics of the loop, but lacking the third.

Angles are never formed by a single ridge but by the abutting of one ridge against another. Therefore, an angular formation cannot be used as a type line. In figure 18, ridges A and B join at an angle.

Patti, that 45 degree rule is only meant for identifying an 'upthrust'... and can formally only be applied to situations which relate to the 'horizontal plane' - see the definition on page 33:

"An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more."

So I think it is obvious that you are taking that 45 degrees rule out of context - since we are not discussing 'upthrusts'.

PS. This also implicates that this 'upthrust' rule can not be used for analysing Kiwihands' fingerprint, because the 'bifurcation' is not found at the 'horizontal plane'...!!

One more thought:

After saying this... I now better understand Lynn's earlier objection regarding the 'concept' of describing any triradius as an abuttment of 3 ridges (I am not sure in which book we found that comment, I think it was Schaumann & Alter).

Because now I recognize that this applying the concept of an 'abuttment' to a 'triradius... induced a confusing element, because the essential characteristic in a normal abuttment of 2 ridges can never be observed in a 'triradial abuttment' (because the missing of a ridge that does not change it's path).

I think I have the context right.

The horizontal plane is the proximal field if there is an upthrust rising from it.

The upthrust that is only rising from the proximal field at a 45 degree angle or less, is a bifurcation and considered as continuing in the same direction.

Greater than 45 degrees it is no longer a bifurcation, but qualifies as an upthrust.

At 90 degrees we are at the lowest range of Penrose's 90 degree minimum. 90 to 120 degrees is related to a triradius.

Therefore, the FBI tell us 90 degrees is significant for an upthrust. That upthrust is the ridge that forms an angle at between 90 degrees and 120 degrees. We are then looking at abutting ridges. We are looking at ridges from 3 different fields.

A tented arch works as it represents the basics of what defines an interruption of the continuous flow of ridges in an arch, into distinct proximal and distal systems. A tented arch is actually a triradius without a pattern field in its truest form. 2 lateral and 1 proximal fields are found instead.

And regarding your "P.S." ; that is where I have the largest disagreement. You have not utilized the horizontal plane (proximal transverse ridge system) in your analysis of Kiwi's fingerprint.

But as to your last image in order for your 3 green radiants to be accurate. One of them MUST be a ridge from the proximal ridge system. You instead have drawn a distal ridge that is either abutted or joined to, a ridge from the pattern side and a ridge from the distal side. It is either the upper angle of the distal corner of a triangular shaped triradius, or a bifurcation of 1 ridge spitting into 2. Not 3 fields meeting at a central point.

Patti, I have a question:

What guideline or rule do you have mind specificly?

Because I don't recognize how your words could relate to a valid requirement: because in any 'triradius' in a loop the two 'horizontal' branches make the border between the 'proximal area' and the other two areas. So I hope that you can answer my question with a specified quote from one of the books.

PS. After you answer my question, I prefer if we continue discuss Kiwihands' example in the appropriate discussion.

Patti wrote:Martijn,I am not using Kiwi's as an extension of her discussion. I am using it as an example here where choosing the bifurcation is a mistake. It is a most obvious example of this kind of mistake.

Patti, I assume that you are aware that both Lynn & I do not agree with your conclusions about Kiwihands' fingerprint. So, it is hard to understand why you specificly choose that example to illustrate what you have in mind.

But I am not sure why you come up with her example... since you are talking about a 'choice'... but right now I don't recognize how that actually relates to what we are discussiong in this topic.

I'll speak for myself. Yet, I think Lynn is in complete agreement with me on everything I've posted about a triradius except for when I draw in 'missing pieces' of the radiants. I stopped drawing them here.

From what I understood, Lynn placed the triradial point at the end of the short ridge, not in the center of the bifurcation. She has also pointed out the nature of your bifurcation represented 2 fields.

I would agree with Lynn's choice before your choice of the bifurcation. My disagreement with Lynn's choice is that I thought each ridge at the center, unless it's a dot, is related to one of three fields. Lynn left this short ridge ending in the center, in the midst of 3 outer ridges, closing in.

I am not using Kiwi's as a Kiwi discussion. I need it to illustrate that you do not use the center of a bifurcation as the triradial point when it's in the location that you have chosen.

The horizontal plane is the proximal field if there is an upthrust rising from it.

The upthrust that is only rising from the proximal field at a 45 degree angle or less, is a bifurcation and considered as continuing in the same direction.

Greater than 45 degrees it is no longer a bifurcation, but qualifies as an upthrust.

At 90 degrees we are at the lowest range of Penrose's 90 degree minimum. 90 to 120 degrees is related to a triradius.

Therefore, the FBI tell us 90 degrees is significant for an upthrust. That upthrust is the ridge that forms an angle at between 90 degrees and 120 degrees. We are then looking at abutting ridges. We are looking at ridges from 3 different fields.

A tented arch works as it represents the basics of what defines an interruption of the continuous flow of ridges in an arch, into distinct proximal and distal systems. A tented arch is actually a triradius without a pattern field in its truest form. 2 lateral and 1 proximal fields are found instead.

And regarding your "P.S." ; that is where I have the largest disagreement. You have not utilized the horizontal plane (proximal transverse ridge system) in your analysis of Kiwi's fingerprint.

Patti, it is clear for me that you do not have the context right:

Because in Kiwihands' fingerprint there is a 'looping ridge'... which can formally not be considered as part of the horizontal plane.

PS. Regarding your "PS":

Have you forgotten that I have described the F.B.I.'s 'type lines' for Kiwihands' fingerprint? (My lower 'type line' is the horizontal plane, and it is also the most distal ridge of the 'proximal area').

The horizontal plane is the proximal field if there is an upthrust rising from it.

The upthrust that is only rising from the proximal field at a 45 degree angle or less, is a bifurcation and considered as continuing in the same direction.

Greater than 45 degrees it is no longer a bifurcation, but qualifies as an upthrust.

At 90 degrees we are at the lowest range of Penrose's 90 degree minimum. 90 to 120 degrees is related to a triradius.

Therefore, the FBI tell us 90 degrees is significant for an upthrust. That upthrust is the ridge that forms an angle at between 90 degrees and 120 degrees. We are then looking at abutting ridges. We are looking at ridges from 3 different fields.

A tented arch works as it represents the basics of what defines an interruption of the continuous flow of ridges in an arch, into distinct proximal and distal systems. A tented arch is actually a triradius without a pattern field in its truest form. 2 lateral and 1 proximal fields are found instead.

And regarding your "P.S." ; that is where I have the largest disagreement. You have not utilized the horizontal plane (proximal transverse ridge system) in your analysis of Kiwi's fingerprint.

Patti, it is clear for me that you do not have the context right:

Because in Kiwihands' fingerprint there is a 'looping ridge'... which can formally not be considered as part of the horizontal plane.

PS. Regarding your "PS":

Have you forgotten that I have described the F.B.I.'s 'type lines' for Kiwihands' fingerprint? (My lower 'type line' is the horizontal plane, and it is also the most distal ridge of the 'proximal area').

Correct, the looping ridge is a pattern field ridge.

And yes, I recall that earlier you made the lower FBI type line the proximal ridge. It's also the proximal radiant of the triradius.